Iain Martin is a political commentator, and a former editor of The Scotsman and former deputy editor of The Sunday Telegraph. He is the author of Making It Happen: Fred Goodwin, RBS and the men who blew up the British economy, published by Simon & Schuster.. As well as this blog, he writes a column for The Sunday Telegraph. You can read more about Iain by visiting his website

This is the Common Market Europe needs

A meeting at Messina this weekend could rectify the damage done there in 1955. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

They have all been through Messina. The Greeks established the city in the 8th century BC. The Romans stationed troops here. Later, the Goths, the Byzantine empire, the Arabs and then the Normans ruled the roost. Richard the Lionheart and his fleet stopped by on their way to the Holy Land. And in 1943 General Patton and 7th US Army beat the British 8th Army and Monty, Field Marshal Montgomery, in the Allied race to Messina to complete the liberation of Sicily.

It is the ideal city from which to contemplate Europe’s long history. The continent has been criss-crossed by aspirational migrants and scarred by wars. These disruptions have been interwoven with great bursts of cross-border trade and intellectual co-operation, which produced much of Western civilisation. Europe has been ruled by powerful empires and leaders whose dominance seemed assured, until they fell like all the others.

Messina’s most recent claim to fame is associated with the latest continental empire. In 1955, it was the birthplace of what became the EU when it was chosen as the location for a conference involving the six foreign ministers of the then European Steel and Coal Community.

In an agreement that paved the way for the Treaty of Rome, the six declared their determination to make “further progress towards the setting up of a united Europe through the development of common institutions, the gradual merging of national economies, the creation of a common market and the harmonisation of their social policies”. Any British Eurosceptic can spot the problem with the statement straight away. Look how quickly it moves from the laudable idea of a common market to social “harmonisation,” under the banner of a united Europe.

Rather than establishing a common market or a trading block of co-operating sovereign nation states, the six opted instead for a relentlessly integrationist model that led to the insanity of the single currency and the creation of a vast and interfering Brussels bureaucracy.

The British were not at Messina in 1955, of course. And we did not join the resulting EEC until the early 1970s, when voters were assured that it would never threaten British sovereignty. This was an obvious falsehood, in which lie the roots of our current disaffection with the EU.

A poll published yesterday revealed the extent of British discontent: only 26 per cent of Britons have a positive view of the EU. This so concerned Sir Malcolm Rifkind, a former foreign secretary, that he has called for an urgent national debate about the UK’s future in Europe. David Cameron, meanwhile, is committed to renegotiating the terms of our membership and putting the results to a referendum.

But might it actually be possible to avoid years of diplomatic conflict and to correct the mistakes made at Messina? Could a viable alternative be constructed in which all European countries can trade with each other happily without needing to be full members of the EU?

These were questions debated at a new conference held over the weekend in Messina, at the very same hotel as in 1955. Hosting was the former Italian foreign minister and Eurosceptic Antonio Martino. His father, Gaetano Martino, was the Italian foreign minister at the original conference.

Under the banner of the Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists (AECR), representatives of parties from across Europe discussed how a European Common Market (ECM) might be established. Much centred on a draft statement by Dan Hannan and his colleagues, which will be published next year. This envisages the creation of a pan-European free trade area open to all states on the European continent. It would be strictly trade, and countries that wanted to stay in the EU could continue to do so.

For such a proposal to stand any chance of success, though, it would need heavyweight support from leaders such as David Cameron. And Germany would have to be persuaded that here is an easy way to deal with several of its dilemmas – not only the UK’s demands for a looser relationship. Turkey is keen to join the EU but cannot because members are reluctant to allow it. By letting it join a new European Common Market, however, it would get proper access to European markets, without having to be in the EU.

With some modifications, such an initiative would open up the possibility of countries such as the UK being, perhaps, associate members of the EU, while having fully sovereign parliaments (with control of their own borders).

The Messina statement represents an immensely positive and refreshing development precisely because it is not narrowly nationalist. From a British point of view, it recognises that we cannot leave the European neighbourhood; we are part of it, attached by geography, culture and history. But if such a free common market were created, the UK and others could trade with the EU while allowing our friends to integrate to their hearts’ content. With a little imagination there might be a way out of the current impasse.